On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:48:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If there's an option to choose between either paragraph 3 and paragraph
> 4, this means you can effectively ignore paragraph 3 entirely if the
> Program is coupled with code under another license. So, to check whether
> or not the license is GPL-compatible, one would have to see whether any
> of the terms in the license _outside of paragraph 3_ impose 'further
> restrictions' as defined in the GPL. I don't think that is the case;
> AFAICS, the only GPL-incompatibility in this entire license is paragraph
> 3c.
4c is very GPL-incompatible:
c) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
This clause prohibits adding restrictions, which includes, for example,
the source distribution requirements of the GPL. In other words,
there's an additional restriction beyond the GPL: it prohibits derived
works from having source distribution requirements.
In general, I think all licensing options with this type of clause ("derived
works must be licensed under the terms of this License") are incompatible
with each other. Another example: the LGPL would be incompatible with the
GPL, except that it has a separate option to downgrade to the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
